HIV discordant married couple and infertility

[Abyssinia]

There is a similar question on here, but my question is a bit different. If you have a HIV discordant married couple, if the wife has reached her menopause or is infertile because of a hysterectomy for medical reasons, or of the sexually transmitted disease has caused infertility, are they allowed to make love with a condom?

 

[1ke]

There is a similar question on here, but my question is a bit different. If you have a HIV discordant married couple, if the wife has reached her menopause or is infertile because of a hysterectomy for medical reasons, or of the sexually transmitted disease has caused infertility, are they allowed to make love with a condom?

No.

 

[Adam1986]

There is a similar question on here, but my question is a bit different. If you have a HIV discordant married couple, if the wife has reached her menopause or is infertile because of a hysterectomy for medical reasons, or of the sexually transmitted disease has caused infertility, are they allowed to make love with a condom?

IMO I’d go with yes. IF she can’t get pregnant; then there’s no reason not to use a condom. It would be the same situation that two gay men would face. And the Pope did say that it CAN be OK then. So…

 

[dailey]

No…

 

[Corki]

IMO I’d go with yes. IF she can’t get pregnant; then there’s no reason not to use a condom. It would be the same situation that two gay men would face. And the Pope did say that it CAN be OK then. So…

The Pope did not say any such thing.

And no, a married couple is never allowed to use a contraceptive device when engaging in marital relations.

 

[Adam1986]

The Pope did not say any such thing.
Um, did I dream the whole BIG HUGE discussion last week when the Pope said that when having sex with a gay prostitute; it may be permissible to use a condom to stop the spread of HIV?

And no, a married couple is never allowed to use a contraceptive device when engaging in marital relations.

**IMO it’s an extenuating circumstance when

1. The woman can NO LONGER GET PREGNANT
2. A scared life is in immediate danger.**

 

[Corki]

**

Um, did I dream the whole BIG HUGE discussion last week when the Pope said that when having sex with a gay prostitute; it may be permissible to use a condom to stop the spread of HIV?

IMO it’s an extenuating circumstance when

1. The woman can NO LONGER GET PREGNANT
2. A scared life is in immediate danger.**

Yes, you were dreaming if you think the Pope said that is was ever permissable to use a condom. The Pope reiterated, in fact, that using a condom, even to try to stop the spread of an infection, is not a moral solution.

The prohibition against condom use does not have a clause for “extenuating circumstances”.

I have no idea what you mean by a “scared life” and there is not immediate danger present in the OP.

 

[Adam1986]

Yes, you were dreaming if you think the Pope said that is was ever permissable to use a condom. The Pope reiterated, in fact, that using a condom, even to try to stop the spread of an infection, is not a moral solution.
To quote from lifenews.com/2010/11/21/int-1694/

“But book says the Pope indicates there may be an “exceptional situation” when using condoms may be appropriate, such as cases of sexual intercourse that may threaten the life of another person because of a transmission of a potentially deadline sexual disease. That might justify their usage in instances such as male prostitutes using them to stop the spread of HIV.”

So yes in some cases it is permissible to use a condom. The Pope did say that. I’m not making it up.

The prohibition against condom use does not have a clause for “extenuating circumstances”.

I have no idea what you mean by a “scared life” and there is not immediate danger present in the OP.

**The scared life would be the wife. When she catches HIV, she is going to die a horrible death that could have possibly been avoided. Her life is scared.

The immediate danger is her contracting HIV which WILL kill her.**

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

There is a similar question on here, but my question is a bit different. If you have a HIV discordant married couple, if the wife has reached her menopause or is infertile because of a hysterectomy for medical reasons, or of the sexually transmitted disease has caused infertility, are they allowed to make love with a condom?

No.

IMO I’d go with yes. IF she can’t get pregnant; then there’s no reason not to use a condom. It would be the same situation that two gay men would face. And the Pope did say that it CAN be OK then. So…

He said nothing of the sort.

**IMO it’s an extenuating circumstance when

1. The woman can NO LONGER GET PREGNANT
2. A scared life is in immediate danger.**

ABC is intrinsically evil and can never be justified.

**The scared life would be the wife. When she catches HIV, she is going to die a horrible death that could have possibly been avoided. Her life is scared.

The immediate danger is her contracting HIV which WILL kill her.**

This would require abstinence, not ABC. Again, ABC is intrinsically evil and always a grave sin. In situations where harm can arise from the marital act abstinence must be maintained.

 

[Adam1986]

No.

He said nothing of the sort.
To quote from lifenews.com/2010/11/21/int-1694/

“But book says the Pope indicates there may be an “exceptional situation” when using condoms may be appropriate, such as cases of sexual intercourse that may threaten the life of another person because of a transmission of a potentially deadline sexual disease. That might justify their usage in instances such as male prostitutes using them to stop the spread of HIV.”

So yes in some cases it is permissible to use a condom. The Pope did say that.

ABC is intrinsically evil and can never be justified.

This would require abstinence, not ABC. Again, ABC is intrinsically evil and always a grave sin. In situations where harm can arise from the marital act abstinence must be maintained.

**You know for what it’s worth; even though I disagree with you on ABC I DO AGREE with you on the fact that the person who is HIV+ should be abstinent. I think it does put the person who you love at a horrible risk.

BUT I do feel if you are going to be selfish and your partner is going to be EXTREMELY FOOLISH and not value their life; then you should at least have the common sense to try and not kill the person who you love.

This is just my opinion though.**

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

**You know for what it’s worth; even though I disagree with you on ABC I DO AGREE with you on the fact that the person who is HIV+ should be abstinent. I think it does put the person who you love at a horrible risk.

BUT I do feel if you are going to be selfish and your partner is going to be EXTREMELY FOOLISH and not value their life; then you should at least have the common sense to try and not kill the person who you love.

This is just my opinion though.**

CCC Reference

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

Just ftr

 

[Adam1986]

CCC Reference

Just ftr

What’s “ftr”? Sorry I don’t think I’ve seen that one before.

“for the…?”

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

What’s “ftr”? Sorry I don’t think I’ve seen that one before.

“for the…?”

Sorry, For the Record = FTR. I might also have said FYI, but that is so hackneyed I didnt want to use it.

 

[Adam1986]

Sorry, For the Record = FTR. I might also have said FYI, but that is so hackneyed I didnt want to use it.

Ah! For the record. Thanks man! I should have been able to figure that one out though lol.

 

[Corki]

**

“But book says the Pope indicates there may be an “exceptional situation” when using condoms may be appropriate, such as cases of sexual intercourse that may threaten the life of another person because of a transmission of a potentially deadline sexual disease. That might justify their usage in instances such as male prostitutes using them to stop the spread of HIV.”

So yes in some cases it is permissible to use a condom. The Pope did say that.

The scared life would be the wife. When she catches HIV, she is going to die a horrible death that could have possibly been avoided. Her life is scared.

The immediate danger is her contracting HIV which WILL kill her.**

The “exceptional situation” is one where a person is ALREADY committing a grave sin and choses between two other additional sins. The choice in that case to limit infection rather than spread infection might have a basis according to the reported quotes from the Pope’s book. It’s still a mortal sin but possibly a lesser one. It’s roughly comprable to a bank robber. He can chose to shoot the teller or lock her in a safe. Locking her in the safe is not a “permissable” act but is better than shooting her if he is robbing the bank already. But never has any of the quotes indicated that using a condom, in any situation is “permissable”. In fact, the Pope said it was not moral.

In the case of a married couple, they are not already engaged in gravely sinful behavior.

There is no immediate danger for the wife unless she engages in risky sexual behavior. She might be scared but her life is not scared.

 

[Abyssinia]

IMO I’d go with yes. IF she can’t get pregnant; then there’s no reason not to use a condom. It would be the same situation that two gay men would face. And the Pope did say that it CAN be OK then. So…

Where did the Pope mention HIV discordant couples? And where did he say two gay men should use a condom?

You can switch the ‘‘man’’ with a woman or a transsexual.

There are two things going on here: 1) A man is intending to reduce the risk of infection. 2) The man is putting on a condom. In which of these things does the Pope say there may be a first step toward a more human way of living sexuality?

If you answered “in the putting on of a condom” then you can’t read.

He gave an example of a prostitute, the intention of wanting to reduce the risk of infection is a good intention, but the action of wearing a condom is still wrong.

1. Pope Benedict said that using a condom can be a first step towards thinking about right and wrong and not that it is a step towards rightness. He most definitely did not say that using a condom is ever justified.
2. Pope Benedict said that in the intention to reduce infection there may be a step towards a more human sexuality. He most definitely did not say that putting on the condom was a step towards a more human sexuality.

lovingit.co.uk/2010/11/what-pope-benedict-said-about-condoms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lovingit+%28Catholic+and+Loving+it!%29

 

[Adam1986]

The “exceptional situation” is one where a person is ALREADY committing a grave sin and choses between two other additional sins. The choice in that case to limit infection rather than spread infection might have a basis according to the reported quotes from the Pope’s book. It’s still a mortal sin but possibly a lesser one. It’s roughly comprable to a bank robber. He can chose to shoot the teller or lock her in a safe. Locking her in the safe is not a “permissable” act but is better than shooting her if he is robbing the bank already. But never has any of the quotes indicated that using a condom, in any situation is “permissable”. In fact, the Pope said it was not moral.

Well, not to spilt hairs but it is “permissible”. Permissible means and I quote “that can be permitted; allowable:” The Pope did say that it can be permitted for use with a prostitute (male or female).

In the case of a married couple, they are not already engaged in gravely sinful behavior.
I disagree I think it CAN be gravely sinful to not value your own life or the life of your partner.

There is no immediate danger for the wife unless she engages in risky sexual behavior. She might be scared but her life is not scared.

You mean “sacred” right? Not “scared”? Sorry just want to get this response right. If you do mean “sacred” how can you say her life is not “sacred”!? All life is sacred. Hers, her husbands, mine, yours, and unborn children’s. ALL our lives are sacred.

 

[Corki]

**You mean “sacred” right? Not “scared”? Sorry just want to get this response right. **

I don’t know. I was just quoting you.

The scared life would be the wife. When she catches HIV, she is going to die a horrible death that could have possibly been avoided. Her life is scared.

Well, not to spilt hairs but it is “permissible”. Permissible means and I quote “that can be permitted; allowable:” The Pope did say that it can be permitted for use with a prostitute (male or female).

Except the Pope didn’t say it was permissable OR allowable.

Here’s the actual quote that caused all the hoopla

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

The “she” here is the Church. Nowhere does the Pope say it’s moral, allowable, permissable or “ok”.

I disagree I think it CAN be gravely sinful to not value your own life or the life of your partner.

Of course. But just by being married and living together they are not de-valuing any life. You don’t need to have condom-protected sex to value your life together.

 

[Adam1986]

Where did the Pope mention HIV discordant couples? And where did he say two gay men should use a condom?

You can switch the ‘‘man’’ with a woman or a transsexual.

There are two things going on here: 1) A man is intending to reduce the risk of infection. 2) The man is putting on a condom. In which of these things does the Pope say there may be a first step toward a more human way of living sexuality?

If you answered “in the putting on of a condom” then you can’t read.

He gave an example of a prostitute, the intention of wanting to reduce the risk of infection is a good intention, but the action of wearing a condom is still wrong.

1. Pope Benedict said that using a condom can be a first step towards thinking about right and wrong and not that it is a step towards rightness. He most definitely did not say that using a condom is ever justified.
2. Pope Benedict said that in the intention to reduce infection there may be a step towards a more human sexuality. He most definitely did not say that putting on the condom was a step towards a more human sexuality.

lovingit.co.uk/2010/11/what-pope-benedict-said-about-condoms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lovingit+%28Catholic+and+Loving+it!%29

You are correct in saying that the Pope has not yet said anything about one person in a marriage being HIV+.

However when I made the my statement it was in reference to someone saying that it is never permissible to use a condom UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I pointed out that the Pope has now said that there are instances, when using a condom is permissible. That’s all. I’m not saying that Pope says it’s OK to use a condom if you’re married and are HIV+.

 

[Adam1986]

I don’t know. I was just quoting you.

Oh. Ooops. Sorry. I meant “sacred”.

Except the Pope didn’t say it was permissable OR allowable.

Here’s the actual quote that caused all the hoopla

The “she” here is the Church. Nowhere does the Pope say it’s moral, allowable, permissable or “ok”.
But if it’s the first step to living a better life; don’t you think that’s “permissible”?

Of course. But just by being married and living together they are not de-valuing any life. You don’t need to have condom-protected sex to value your life together.

**True. But you may be devaluing your life; if there is no chance of a woman getting pregnant and you still choose to possibly kill yourself.

In this case; we are only speaking of a woman who can no longer have children.**